reasoning benchmark
Enhanced version of HumanEval that extends the original test cases by 80x using EvalPlus framework for rigorous evaluation of LLM-synthesized code functional correctness, detecting previously undetected wrong code
Updated Aug 11, 2026
Higher score ranks better on this benchmark.
| 01 | MI | 92.9% | 100.0% | 10 | C | |
| 02 | MI | 92.3% | 88.9% | 10 | C | |
| 03 | IB | 86.1% | 77.8% | 10 | C | |
| 04 | IB | 86.1% | 66.7% | 10 | C | |
| 05 | MI | 82.8% | 55.6% | 10 | C | |
| 06 | IB | 78.3% | 44.4% | 10 | C | |
| 07 | XI | 75.6% | 33.3% | 10 | C | |
| 08 | AC | 52.4% | 22.2% | 10 | C | |
| 09 | AC | 51.2% | 11.1% | 10 | C | |
| 10 | BA | 25.0% | 0.0% | 10 | C |
A closer view of the leading scores on this benchmark.
The leading models and scores on this benchmark.
What HumanEval+ measures and how its scores work.
Enhanced version of HumanEval that extends the original test cases by 80x using EvalPlus framework for rigorous evaluation of LLM-synthesized code functional correctness, detecting previously undetected wrong code
Scores are shown in ratio. This benchmark is not independently verified and has an evidence level of B.
Benchmark scores retain their original unit. Overall score eligibility is shown separately.
Common questions about HumanEval+.
Phi 4 Reasoning is currently ranked first with 92.9%.
Enhanced version of HumanEval that extends the original test cases by 80x using EvalPlus framework for rigorous evaluation of LLM-synthesized code functional correctness, detecting previously undetected wrong code
Yes. Higher values rank better for this benchmark.
10 model results are currently shown.
Yes. This benchmark can contribute to the current LLMBoard capability score.